Generation J.D.

I had the pleasure Thursday night of attending my first Baltimore County Bar Association banquet, colloquially known as “The Prom.” The Prom was held at Martin’s West, a place I had not been – coincidentally – since my own high school prom.

In the weeks leading up to the event, I heard great stories about bar banquets past. Only lawyers and judges can attend the Prom, and the lack of spouses and significant others may account for the legendary tales.

While last night was not as rowdy as days of yore, one great tradition remained intact: throwing rolls at the keynote speaker. I’ve asked around the courthouse to see if anyone knows the origin of the tradition to no avail. But I learned it is upheld no matter the level of dignitary at the podium. Spiro Agnew once gave the keynote while vice president; even with the Secret Service in the building, he was still pelted with dinner rolls. Last night’s keynote, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, came prepared with a basket of rolls to fire back at the crowd.

Throwing rolls is indicative of the general mood at the Prom. Even though everyone is dressed in their finest black-tie garb, no one takes themselves too seriously, and I think that’s precisely why it was so much fun. (The lobster dinner and open bar didn’t hurt, either.) It was a great opportunity as a young lawyer to see respected judges and lawyers let their hair down, a reminder they like having a good time just as much as the next guy.

Even though the banquet is a great party, it’s also a good place to make connections. The guest list is a who’s who of Baltimore-area lawyers and judges. One person last night told me that he gets more business in an hour at the Prom than in a week at the office, and I don’t doubt it. For every law school classmate, law clerk and former coworker I caught up with last night, I met three new lawyers.

If you’ve never been before, the Baltimore County bar banquet is a rite of passage that can’t be missed – and one professional event you won’t dread attending.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

My five-year-old son and I are very much alike. We are both oldest children in (relatively) large families. We have the same name. We share the same interests (Go O’s!). We also look alike and have similar personalities. All of this means that it is sometimes extremely difficult for me to be his father. As my mother tells me, this is payback.

My son was born as I was finishing up my first year of law school. As we all heard numerous times during our first years of law school, going to law school teaches us how to think like lawyers. I agree whole-heartedly and frankly, I have trouble remembering how I engaged with any subject — politics, sports, cooking — before law school. This also means that I have thought like a lawyer for the entire time I’ve been a father.

Unfortunately, thinking like a lawyer doesn’t always help me to be a better father. For example, my son often tells me that a directive I have given him — clean up his toys, turn off the TV — is “not fair.” For a long time, I made the time-consuming mistake of explaining to him why what I had asked him to do (or stop doing) was, in fact, completely fair. My wife would roll her eyes knowingly or glide behind me and whisper that I should stop wasting my time. She was right, of course. I only aggravated my son and myself by trying to explain.

My next step was to agree with my son. When he told me that something wasn’t fair, I would immediately tell him that he was right and it wasn’t fair. This worked well… the first few times. Thereafter, my son began retorting “it’s fair to you!” Initially, I stifled my laughter and continued with my plan of telling him he was right and agreeing with him that my order was fair to me but not to him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

As Jen posted Tuesday, the Supreme Court has ruled the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.” The five-justice majority notably left out its thoughts on whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant.

U.S. v. Jones involved a drug dealer who appealed his conviction for conspiring to distribute drugs that was based on evidence the police collected via a GPS monitor physically attached to his vehicle. The police used the GPS monitor to track Antoine Jones’ movements for more than a month without a warrant. All nine justices upheld an appellate court decision reversing Jones’ conviction.

While the Supreme Court mentioned that police might need a probable cause warrant from a judge to physically attach a GPS device to a vehicle and monitor the vehicle’s movements, SCOTUS omitted a clear opinion on what specific situations required a warrant.

While the decision is better than what the government contended — that it could affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, if it desired, without a warrant — it is hard to tell where we stand in the increasing debate over our rights to privacy.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurring opinion, suggested Americans have more rights to privacy in data held by phone and Internet companies than the Supreme Court has held in the past. I did not own an iPhone at the time when everyone found out that Apple tracked its users, but I do own one now. And let me tell you — every time my device asks me whether it can “use my location,” I wonder if I should let it.

John W. Whitehead, writing at The Huffington Post, listed several sources of technology that spur the privacy debate. Drones, smart dust devices, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, iris scanners and your very own cell phone are some of the items available to the police without engaging in a “search” pursuant to U.S. v. Jones.

This is because these technologies do not require the government to engage in a physical trespass of one’s property to gain information.

On another note, I sent in my very first set of discovery requests a few weeks ago that utilized requests for information available via social media. The latest case law (and there is still not much of it yet) leads us to believe that pokes, wall comments, status updates and the like will be discoverable if relevant to the matter being litigated. Is anything we do via our gadgets and on the Internet going to be protected in five years? What are your thoughts? Where do we draw the line?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I understand that many people have a love/ hate relationship with their GPS. It can be a godsend for the directionally-challenged, but it can be an endless source of frustration when it loses its signal or only gets you in the general vicinity of your destination. (I’ll admit I’ve experienced mostly the latter, as recipients of my frantic emergency calls can attest.)

It looks like our legal system is going to have a similar relationship with the technology; the Supreme Court ruled Monday the use of a GPS device to track a suspect’s behavior and location qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment.

However, the justices left it an open question as to whether it’s an invasion of privacy to use GPS devices to track people through a device that comes installed with a GPS, such as a cell phone. The justices hinted that they might have to modify their ruling if GPS devices were used in this manner in order to protect privacy rights.

I know phone records can be subpoenaed in cases and these records can also show the location of the calls, or at least what tower the cell phone call is routed through. But it’s interesting to think that law enforcement could have the capability to monitor your every move through the GPS device on your phone.

Considering that it’s a virtual necessity, if only for safety reasons, for adults to carry a cell phone, this means just about anyone’s location could be tracked at anytime.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I’ve never understood the fax machine. It’s a hulking piece of equipment that takes up a sizable portion of whatever room it is placed in. Never having needed one until my first legal job, I wasn’t particularly familiar with the technology.

It’s not complicated, but I could never remember: do I have to dial “9″ for an outside line? Do I put a “1″ in front of the number? What the heck is the little phone attached to it really used for? Add to that the necessity of creating and printing out a fax cover page, then coming back to check the machine to make sure “Transmission OK,” and it was obvious this was a piece of technology that should be retired.

My frustrations mounted when, in the week before a trial once, opposing counsel sent out 200 pages of new pleadings and exhibits via fax. The machine runs out of toner and runs out of paper, as you are probably well aware, and I wished on a number of occasions that everyone had email and could just scan and attach instead.

So, when I opened my new office recently, I was faced with the task of determining my own technology. I didn’t want a fax machine. I didn’t want to pay for a dedicated fax line. Unfortunately, there are lawyers (you know who you are) and clients who still use it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I ran across a thought-provoking article a few weeks ago: “High-achieving women need more than a bubble bath.” By “high-achieving” women, the article means women who are accomplishment-focused and achievement-oriented— yes, that includes you, my fellow attorneys!

Actually, I found the article — as well as the book on which it was based — to be eerily accurate, as did a few friends of mine.

The article refreshingly recognized the traits of “high-achieving” women are much the same as those found in “high-achieving” men. The difference is in the assumptions that tend to underlie women’s thought processes. Assumptions such as “I have to prove myself to everyone,” “I can’t relax until I finish what I have to do,” and “I should be able to manage it all and accomplish it all without feeling stressed or tired.”

Now, I’m not sure that I would agree that these assumptions are uniquely held by women. I think the assumptions are fairly commonplace in the legal field where, as one article states, “My boss wants innovation as long as it’s done perfectly the first time.”

But I do agree the stress invoked by operating under these assumptions cannot be solved — at least not in the long-term — with bubble baths or vacations.

It makes sense that it isn’t as much about getting rid of the stress; it is about building “stress resilience.” Don’t try to make everything balance perfectly — it is more of a constant give and take, a juggling act, if you will.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™